> When I was young i loved 6502. Instructions there were designed by
> programmers not from hardware developers. It was a pleasure to write
> programs for this chip in assembler. I used an assembler that had only one
> instruction of jump somewhere and decided itself which one used.
> There was an addition (third) run but who cares? Why Microchip
> doesn't offer
> such possibility? We all could forget about BRA and GOTO...
> It's a pity that micro based on 6502 is now produced by two
> producers only.
> There is no way how to purchase them in Europe.
> Maybe, it's off of the PIC topic but comparing 16 and 18 versions it's
> possible we will obtain a fully software stack, a couple of
> address mode in
> a next version and will be happy using instructions invented couple years
> ago.
>
> Sorry for interuption.
>
> Igor

        The PIC isn't a processor, it is a Microcontroller. As such it has
different "objectives" in it's design and function. Personally I think the
"PIC way" of doing things is quite intuitive. There are a few "gotchas" but
that just forces you to remember what you're building and what you have to
worry about. Also realize that a PIC is designed, from the ground up, to be
as cheap to produce as possible. This translates to using process sizes many
times bigger then current state of the art. IIRC current PICs are fabed at
0.6um, maybe even 1um or 1.5um. If memory serves the last Intel processor to
using those fab sizes were the 486s, you're talking early 90s here.

        As for a stack, in the few programs I've written I haven't needed a stack.
It might have been "nice" but definitely not necessary. Also remember that
if you REALLY need a stack you can always implement one manually, it's not
tough to do. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads